Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Expert Committee's Opinion on Revised Answer Key

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, May 29, 2023: In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal challenging the opinion of an expert committee regarding the revised answer key for a recruitment examination conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). The appellant, Monu, had filed the appeal after his writ petition was dismissed by the court.

The appellant had applied for the position of Clerk in response to an advertisement issued by the HSSC in 2015. After appearing in the written examination in 2016 and securing 152 marks, the appellant was called for an interview. However, due to a query raised by another candidate regarding the correctness of an answer in the model answer key, the expert committee reviewed the matter and revised the answer key. Consequently, the appellant was not appointed to the position.

The appellant obtained the revised answer key through the Right to Information Act, 2005, and challenged the correctness of the answer to the disputed question. However, his efforts with the HSSC did not yield any result, leading him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The Single Judge, after examining the matter and considering the respondent's response, held that the court cannot question the correctness of the expert committee's opinion. The Single Judge further noted that the change in the answer applied to all candidates and that the appellant had approached the court after a significant delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Shanker Jha (Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli, upheld the decision of the Single Judge. The Division Bench referred to Supreme Court precedents that emphasized that once a matter has been examined by experts, the court is not required to question the correctness of their opinion. In this case, an expert committee had examined the correctness of the disputed answer and revised the answer key accordingly.

Considering the timeline of events, the Division Bench concluded that taking up the issue at this stage would not serve any meaningful purpose. The advertisement was issued in 2015, the examination was held in 2016, the result was published in 2017, and the revised result was declared in 2018, with selections from the select list already made.

The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of by the court.

Date of decision : 25.05.2023

Monu vs Haryana Staff Selection Commissio

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/25-May-2023-Monu-vs-Haryana-Staff-Selc-P^0H.pdf"]

Latest Legal News